LulzSec takes on Murdoch empire with Sun hack, fake death claim

Lulz Security are at it again, this time hacking into servers belonging to …

LulzSec is back making headlines for itself with an attack aimed at Rupert Murdoch, beleaguered boss of News Corporation. Hackers broke into into servers belonging to News International, the News Corp subsidiary that owns Murdoch's UK newspapers, and published a fake report of the media mogul's death. Masquerading as a copy of daily tabloid The Sun, the report claimed that Murdoch ingested a large quantity of palladium before stumbling into his garden and dying.

The bogus page was published on a hacked server used to host a preview of upcoming changes to another News International paper, The Times. The hackers then forced The Sun's homepage to redirect to the hacked server. The influx of traffic rapidly overwhelmed the preview server, causing it to generate errors and subsequently get taken down. The redirect currently goes to LulzSec's Twitter page. The reason for this peculiar scheme is apparently that the The Times system has been rooted; the The Sun machine has not.

Individuals affiliated with LulzSec and Anonymous are also claiming to have hacked into News International's mail servers, with a press release due tomorrow. News International is, of course, being targeted in the wake of the News of the World phone hacking scandal that has already caused the resignation of several high-ranking executives within the Murdoch empire, and the closure of the newspaper in question.

Earlier in the day, tweets were also made purporting to be the e-mail addresses and password of various News International employees, including former Chief Executive Rebekah Brooks.

I find the target interesting. Sure, Murdoch is a bit of a dick, the whole newspaper was full of them, corrupt bastards, etc... but they were "hacking" (loose use of the word) phones to find information and publish it. Seems kind of outside the AntiSec alleyway to attack them.

Not that I couldn't think of a more worthy group for attention, they've done some disgusting things, but generally the various antisec groups have gone after people who tried to stop the flow information, not publish it.

Hmm, could this damage any case which was going to be brought using those emails as evidence?

Could The Sun claim any incriminating emails which might be found in an investigation are fakes, placed there by hackers?

This could backfire.

Indeed. It all depends on what they find and how they got it, and the nuances of digital privacy law. But it raises a pertinent issue of people with particular skills (ie, hacking), and no legal or political experience, trying to act vigilantes, naive to the fact that attacking the big guys in the wrong way could actually keep them in business.

Or worse, doing it for the Lulz, and becoming the bad guys themselves.

Indeed. It all depends on what they find and how they got it, and the nuances of digital privacy law. But it raises a pertinent issue of people with particular skills (ie, hacking), and no legal or political experience, trying to act vigilantes, naive to the fact that attacking the big guys in the wrong way could actually keep them in business.

Or worse, doing it for the Lulz, and becoming the bad guys themselves.

On the other hand, one could argue that the wrath of the commons can potentially do more damage than any court judgment.

I believe lack of blood implies someone has blood and therefore a heart. I thought that question was still up for debate :-)

So true!

If this was brought by anyone else they would be jumping to see how they could sue or intimidate to keep it down. But since its LS... whatcha gonna do?Sue? nope. Bribe? Don't know who. Intimidate? Already have half the civilized world's cops after them.Who ya gonna call? GHOSTBUSTERS!

(I actually find it sad that I said "Who ya gonna call" and one of my nephews did not know what I was talking about... just shows my age I guess )

I find the target interesting. Sure, Murdoch is a bit of a dick, the whole newspaper was full of them, corrupt bastards, etc... but they were "hacking" (loose use of the word) phones to find information and publish it. Seems kind of outside the AntiSec alleyway to attack them.

Not that I couldn't think of a more worthy group for attention, they've done some disgusting things, but generally the various antisec groups have gone after people who tried to stop the flow information, not publish it.

edit: Password: 63000, Salt: Rebekah. Seriously? Security ftw!

This is getting to more of a gray area, but it's not unreasonable to see Murdoch as at least being opposed to a constructive flow of information, and he's been threatening to the internet at large in the past with golden remarks like "The current days of the internet will soon be over.”

This is getting to more of a gray area, but it's not unreasonable to see Murdoch as at least being opposed to a constructive flow of information, and he's been threatening to the internet at large in the past with golden remarks like "The current days of the internet will soon be over.”

Murdock is a strange one. On one hand, he's a brilliant businessman that's managed to build a worldwide media empire. On the other, he spent hundreds of millions on MySpace (only to lose it all), and he puts his online news/articles completely behind paywalls, expecting people simply to pay up without an incentive, as if people will pay just because it's his business. Then he bitches that people won't pay him.

It's a good thing he's old, because if he was to live another 20 years I think he'd see his media empire fall worse than the Roman empire. He groks traditional media like he breaths, but I don't think he fully understands the way the world is changing, hence his "current days of the internet will soon be over" comments - he's trying to turn back the clock so he can contiinue gaming the system. It's the only game he knows.

The Murdoch scandal = the IMF scandal = several other planned "crises" within major institutions.

These are an orchestrated series of events intended to re-mold currencies and national governments. Cyber-warfare plays a major role in the plan, including the illusion that hackers and certain "heroes" are driving the revolution. When, in fact, it's the CIA and several foreign intelligence services that are causing everything.

But Ars, you cut out the signature (punch line) in the screen capture above!

Just below the photo showing the 'chemicals on the kitchen table' the 'story' says:

<quote> "One detective elaborates. "Officers on the scene report a broken glass, a box of vintage wine, and what seems to be a family album strewn across the floor, containing images from days gone by; some containing handpainted portraits of Murdoch in his early days, donning a top hat and monocle" <end quote>

The Murdoch scandal = the IMF scandal = several other planned "crises" within major institutions.

These are an orchestrated series of events intended to re-mold currencies and national governments. Cyber-warfare plays a major role in the plan, including the illusion that hackers and certain "heroes" are driving the revolution. When, in fact, it's the CIA and several foreign intelligence services that are causing everything.

Don't forget the lizard people! They're directing the CIA from the shadows!

Man, finally hit a target that left me with mixed emotions. I can't stand Sony, but I didn't think the attacks were ethical. I can't stand many of their targets, but I don't agree with their form of retribution. But News Corp? I really cannot think of many targets more worthy of a serious hacking attempt than them.

So I'll say this: I oppose it on principle, but silently I am not dissapointed to see them succeed.

The Murdoch scandal = the IMF scandal = several other planned "crises" within major institutions.

These are an orchestrated series of events intended to re-mold currencies and national governments. Cyber-warfare plays a major role in the plan, including the illusion that hackers and certain "heroes" are driving the revolution. When, in fact, it's the CIA and several foreign intelligence services that are causing everything.

While it makes a plot more interesting than the average Michael Bay movie, fundamentally, humanity is not competent to conspire on such a large scale.

While [chimly's fantasy] makes a plot more interesting than the average Michael Bay movie, fundamentally, humanity is not competent to conspire on such a large scale.

Reminds me of something I read back in the 90's: "The problem with most conspiracy theories is that they seem to believe that for a group of people to behave in a way detrimental to the common good requires intent."

I don't think it's a matter of not being competent (though that's certainly a major factor), it's more of a convergence of self interest. No actual conspiracy required.

While it makes a plot more interesting than the average Michael Bay movie, fundamentally, humanity is not competent to conspire on such a large scale.

That's because it's not a conspiracy. True they avoid questions, however they deny almost nothing.

Murdoch knew the scandal was coming. He is a participant, and willing to take much heat for the plan. Likewise, the IMF chief knew he would be accused of rape (and eventually cleared).

Julian Assange played along with his phony rape accusations, a convenient excuse to stay hidden and avoid awkward questions. If you confronted him about the issues I've raised, he would probably admit to some of it.

While [chimly's fantasy] makes a plot more interesting than the average Michael Bay movie, fundamentally, humanity is not competent to conspire on such a large scale.

Reminds me of something I read back in the 90's: "The problem with most conspiracy theories is that they seem to believe that for a group of people to behave in a way detrimental to the common good requires intent."

I don't think it's a matter of not being competent (though that's certainly a major factor), it's more of a convergence of self interest. No actual conspiracy required.

Ain't this the truth. Always amazes me how people can't see how easy it is to fit a conspiracy into a past event and make it seem plausible. However even if it explained everything neatly, that does not make it any more likely to be true, and in fact real life is rarely as 'neat' as conspiracy theories tend to be.

Self interest, incompetence, both far more likely than conspiracy for most everything that conspiracy theorists go on about. No grand conspiracy ever needed.

In related news, a News of the World whistle blower, journalist Sean Hoare, was actually found dead today. Given the choices I think I like LulzSec's version of reality better.

Read up on the guy and you won't be surprised he died, given his massive drug use and terrible health. Unless you think the Guardian made that up to cover up murder.

I don't really understand why what these journalists did, hacking into locked computer systems and invading peoples privacy and publishing it, is different from what Lulzsec does, hacking into locked computer systems and invading people's privacy and publishing their passwords because they love watching grandmother's get their facebook hacked with penis pictures.

Someone explain why one puts people's knickers in a bunch and the other makes them starry-eyed schoolgirls for Sabu's baby.

Of course, you could all be sheep who hate the people that your friends tell you to and support the people they tell you are cool. That's why I hate everyone, it makes it easier than all this dumbass moralizing.

This is almost funny enough to make me forgive them for all the annoying things they have done. If they would do similar things to a handfull of senators, congressmen, Dr. Phil, Bill O'Reilly, and of course Steve Ballmer all would be forgiven

This is almost funny enough to make me forgive them for all the annoying things they have done. If they would do similar things to a handfull of senators, congressmen, Dr. Phil, Bill O'Reilly, and of course Steve Ballmer all would be forgiven

Yeah, who cares about unscrupulous behavior so long as they target the people that I personally find objectionable!

This is getting to more of a gray area, but it's not unreasonable to see Murdoch as at least being opposed to a constructive flow of information, and he's been threatening to the internet at large in the past with golden remarks like "The current days of the internet will soon be over.”

Murdock is a strange one. On one hand, he's a brilliant businessman that's managed to build a worldwide media empire. On the other, he spent hundreds of millions on MySpace (only to lose it all), and he puts his online news/articles completely behind paywalls, expecting people simply to pay up without an incentive, as if people will pay just because it's his business. Then he bitches that people won't pay him.

On the other hand, people have paid him, and those sites are doing just fine.The fact that you personally don't like the way their operated doesn't change that.